The following video provides a visual representation of the vast wealth inequality in the United States. Several key points have been highlighted below.

Key Takeaways:

1) The top 1% of Americans hold 40% of all the nation’s wealth, while the bottom 80% of Americans hold only 7% of the nation’s wealth.

2) The ‘Middle Class’ is hardly distinguishable in its own right from the poorest Americans.

3) The richest 1% take home 24% of all income earned in the United States. In 1976, the richest 1% took home only 9% of all income. Their share of income has nearly tripled in the last thirty years.

4) The richest 1% hold half of all stocks, bonds, and mutual funds, while the bottom 50% only hold .5% (half a percent) of these types of investments.

5) CEOs now make 380x more than the average worker.

6) The average worker must work over a month to earn what a CEO earns in one hour.

NeilS — I don’t feel much commentary is necessary here. The video pretty much speaks for itself. We all know that the wealth in our country is distributed incredibly unevenly, and this video provides an excellent visual representation to remind us just how bad it really is. It also highlights several key points, which I have listed out above.

The sheer momentum which the wealthy have to accumulate more wealth and consolidate even more power seems almost unstoppable. More money is flooding politics than ever before, and from the above data, it is obvious that the vast majority of that money is coming from the most wealthy Americans. Does it not stand to reason that they are going to try to sway policy makers into doing what they want? Knowing this, we should keep a critical eye on the interplay between the super wealthy and our politicians so we know that policy decisions are not being made for the benefit of only a small few.

After three decades of torrid growth, China is encountering an unfamiliar problem with its newly struggling economy: a huge buildup of unsold goods that is cluttering shop floors, clogging car dealerships and filling factory warehouses.

The severity of China’s inventory overhang has been carefully masked by the blocking or adjusting of economic data by the Chinese government — all part of an effort to prop up confidence in the economy among business managers and investors.

China is the world’s second-largest economy and has been the largest engine of economic growth since the global financial crisis began in 2008. Economic weakness means that China is likely to buy fewer goods and services from abroad when the sovereign debt crisis in Europe is already hurting demand, raising the prospect of a global glut of goods and falling prices and weak production around the world.

NeilS — We have run articles on this site about Chinese central planning and the tremendous amount of development that has occurred over the last 10 to 15 years. Of course, much of the development is planned out by the government in such a way that giant metropolitan cities are built and hardly occupied at all. It seems that the massive amount of production that has built up in China is not matching demand. Of course, the Chinese government continues its controversial policy of devaluing their currency, but will it be enough? If demand continues to wane in Europe and the U.S. and Chinese currency continues to appreciate, China may not be able to get rid of its oversupply inventory or fully utilize its capacity for some time to come.

Americans have a global reputation for eating astounding amounts of food. Now it looks like consumers in the U.S. can add to that stereotype an equally embarrassing reputation for throwing out their food. According to a new report from the Natural Resources Defense Council, Americans throw out nearly every other bite of food. That adds up to 40 percent of the country’s annual supply, and a total of $165 billion of uneaten provisions. That’s a sharp 50 percent jump from the 1970s, and 10 times more than consumers in Southeast Asia.

NeilS — Clearly this is a lot of wasted food. Hopefully we can soon figure out a way to harness this waste in some useful way. For example, food processors that take waste and turn it into electricity? Of course, how can we not waste that much food when we eat at restaurants that serve Herculean portion sizes? As the American obesity epidemic comes more and more into the forefront of social conscience, people are trying to manage their weight and eat the proper portion sizes. This does not go hand in hand with eating at your typical American restaurant that serves portions big enough for two or even three people. Maybe we should all consider asking our waiters and waitresses to give us half the portion size if we know we are going to throw half of it away. Just some food for thought ;).

On a side note, welcome back if you are reading this. We took a pretty long break from keeping up with this site due to extraneous circumstances, but I plan on keeping it up here and there so stay tuned!

Cancer survivor Lauri Reamer lived in constant dread that her disease would return, until she took a psychedelic drug in a Johns Hopkins University study.

The 48-year mother of three was given psilocybin, the main ingredient in the “magic mushrooms” of the 1960s, as a remedy to ease anxiety. She spent most of her first “trip” crying, then emerged from the next with less anxiety, better sleep and happier relations with family and friends, she recalled.

The experience “really cracked me open,” said Reamer, an anesthesiologist at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore before she was diagnosed with leukemia. “It let me be in life again, instead of this place of fear where I had been living.”

Almost 40 years after Richard Nixon called former Harvard University psychologist Timothy Leary the most dangerous man in America for promoting use of hallucinogenic substances, there is a rebirth of interest in their therapeutic benefits. Reamer was enrolled in a clinical trial at Johns Hopkins to relieve fear of death in cancer patients, one of a half-dozen similar studies under way at New York University, Harvard, the University of California, Los Angeles, and the University of New Mexico.

The new research, largely driven by the psychiatric community, is also testing psychedelics for use against depression, chronic headaches and addiction as current scientists, much like their 1960s predecessors, seek to understand the “consciousness-expanding” effects of the drugs.

NeilS — Being a cancer survivor myself, I can attest to the fact that the worst part, at least for me, was the anxiety after all the treatment was done. During the treatment I knew I was doing what needed to be done to combat my ailment so I pressed on. After my final end-of-chemo CT, I felt helpless and stricken with anxiety. Cancer isn’t something you “cure” per se. Best case you go into something like indefinite remission. There is always a chance that it might come creeping back up on you and take you unawares. It can be an all-consuming mental struggle where every night as you pull up the covers you wonder if it has come back to finish you.

Yet, as time goes on you learn to cope, but the first few years are the hardest. The first few years when you are still in the “potential danger zone” and the cancer has the highest likelihood of returning. During that time I was lucky enough to have many friends and family that provided the psychological support that I needed. Others, though, may not be so lucky or the anxiety could pressure them in completely different ways. For those people I am infinitely sympathetic and any kind of drug or therapy that may work would be a welcome tool to combat the constant dread. Hopefully the scientific research into the usefulness of these drugs will prevail and help many people with increasing their quality of life.

BryanF- I do not know what to do with this information but I found it to be tragic yet very interesting. I urge everyone to follow the link and take a look at the number of accident deaths in the United States over the last 10 years. Can anyone draw any good conclusions from this?

Over the last few months, the federal government has started to combat online piracy by trying to add additional regulation to the DMCA. In the Senate, a bill called the Protect-IP Act has been introduced. The problems with this bill have been extensively reported on.

Now, the House has submitted their version of this bill, which has come to be called, E-PARASITE.

The House of Representatives introduces it as an act that will “promote prosperity, creativity, entrepreneurship, and innovation by combating the theft of U.S. property, and for other purposes.” Basically, it’s an attempt to stop online piracy and give a stronger voice to content that’s been infringed upon via the Internet.

This bill uses broad sweeping definitions of copyright infringement in an attempt to bring as many sites as possible under its umbrella.

A site that is] “…Primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator for use in, offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates” violations of the Copyright Act, Title I of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, or anti-counterfeiting laws; or,[The site] “…Is taking, or has taken, deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability of the use of the U.S.-directed site to carry out the acts that constitute a violation” of those laws; or, [The site’s owner] “…Operates the U.S.-directed site with the object of promoting, or has promoted, its use to carry out acts that constitute a violation” of those laws.

This just opens the door for Internet censorship, and if something like this passes you can expect new Web content to suffer and plenty of lawsuits to fight that. We can think of a number of recent innovations that are likely anxious about the potential passing of the bill (Singboard and Turntable.fm come to mind). And wouldn’t any site that hosts a great deal of user-generated content be in trouble? Tumblr, Twitter, and the entire sharing, re-posting, re-tweeting platform would be put on notice.

Another problem with E-PARASITE is that it treats allegedly infringing websites as innocent until proven guilty.

If an Internet domain is suspected of infringing on another’s intellectual property, that Website is more or less ostracized from the Internet. Search engines are required to hide the accused sites.

Copyright holders would merely have to allege a site is infringing on their property to shut down business. Hosts and payment services would be required to, more or less, blacklist a site once receiving a notice accusing it of stealing “U.S. property.” And then that site and its ad partners would be wiped out until it goes through the court system to establish its legitimacy.

BryanF: To achieve this “site takedown,” E-PARASITE requires internet service providers to block access to the website except through DNS entries. This is essentially a nationwide firewall and is similar to what China does to restrict internet access. The question is, why are our legislators so willing to impose such draconian measures on our internet access? I understand that the MPAA and the RIAA want control over their media, but I am uncomfortable with ceding our internet freedom in the name of copyright protection. These organizations should innovate new business models (think VHS or cassettes) instead of clinging on to old now unprofitable ones through legislation. One of the most popular site on the internet, Youtube, seems to be in violation of the wording of this bill. Are you comfortable with the possibility that it is removed from our internet?

Mississippi voters rejected a ballot initiative that would have made the state the first in the U.S. to ban abortion by declaring that life begins at conception.

The so-called personhood bid lost yesterday by a margin of about 58 percent to 42 percent, with 84 percent of precincts reporting, according to the Associated Press. The amendment to the state constitution would have redefined the term “person” to include “every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the equivalent thereof.”

The measure would have bestowed legal rights on fertilized eggs and cut off access to abortion by equating it with murder, making no exception for rape, incest or when a woman’s life is in danger. Medical groups warned it might have criminalized contraception and miscarriages while limiting access to treatments such as in-vitro fertilization.

The defeat in Mississippi “sends an unequivocal message to proponents of these measures — that the American people, no matter the political perspective, will not stand for such blatant attacks on the health and constitutionally protected rights of women in this country,” Nancy Northup, president and chief executive of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a statement.

NeilS — Although this initiative seems absurd and farcical to most casual observers, it was actually predicted to pass. The implications of this would be far-reaching to say the least. For example, if this had passed, a woman with any kind of pregnancy complications would not be able to have a procedure performed on her that could save her life but possibly put the baby at risk. Both the doctor performing the procedure and the mother could be prosecuted for murder if the fetus was lost. Also, fertility clinics where doctors store many fertilized eggs (for example after in vitro fertilization) could be prosecuted for murder or manslaughter if any of those eggs were lost. Suppose the clinic loses power and many eggs were destroyed, mass murder would not be off the table.

Beyond the absurdity of the measure lies a deeper political trend in this country. Why would something so extreme even be on any ballot? I think if you asked most Americans, they would say that having an abortion within the first trimester or within a reasonable time after conception should be the woman’s choice. And I have little doubt that most Americans would be in favor of saving the mother if there was a complication that would inevitably kill both the mother and child she was bearing. Not to mention exceptions for incest or rape and a variety of other circumstances. Unfortunately, even though this measure wasn’t able to pass in the most pro-life state in America, the extremism is not going away. According to a CNN article supporters of the measure are as ardent as ever:

Personhood USA uses the amendments in an attempt to maneuver a direct challenge to the Roe v. Wade ruling. “We will establish a culture of life,” said Dr. Freda Bush, a Yes on 26 spokeswoman. “This is a cultural war from the womb to the tomb and we will be back.”

New figures released by the Department of Energy show that the world is emitting carbon dioxide at a rate much faster than scientists had predicted. Global CO2 emissions reached 10 billion tons in 2010, the Oak Ridge National Lab reports, about 564 million tons or 6 percent more than emitted in 2009. It’s the biggest annual jump ever recorded thus far

The new figure also means CO2 is now being emitted at a rate higher than the figure the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) used in 2007 to project its worst-case scenario for global temperature increase by the end of the century (depicted by the red line in the graph below):

In light of the new DOE report, the question scientists are asking now is whether the world will experience the IPCC’s worst case scenario “or something more extreme,” Christopher Field, a Stanford University professor and head of one of the IPCC’s working groups, said.

NeilS — So, now I think we can fully agree that the science behind human-caused global warming is real. Even the Koch Brothers’ own study found that “global warming is real.” Often I hear the idea that humans are too small and insignificant to cause global warming, but clearly this is not the case any more. With 7 billion people consuming energy on this planet, global warming is real and must be dealt with.

Some would say that global warming is not a big deal because as some areas become arid and drought-ridden others will become habitable. What I say to them is that, as usual, the weak, poor, young and disenfranchised people of the world will be disproportionately affected by global warming. The people that are the root cause of most global warming (rich energy consumers) will be able to move to more habitable climates and avoid the brunt of destruction in many ways. On the other hand, the poor farmer in Africa or India who barely contributes to world CO2 emissions will starve to death and watch their friends, family members, and children perish.

It stands to reason that rich countries have a much higher level of energy consumed per capita. Therefore they disproportionately increase world CO2 emissions relative to poorer countries that consume less power. So, in the end, you have to ask yourself if this appeals to your moral sensibilities. Are you not willing to pay a little bit extra for your energy so that innocent children around the world that contributed almost nothing to global warming can have a chance to survive?

The truth is that we have the capability to take this problem on, but people deluded into thinking that the free market solves every problem by itself have been sold a lie. Ask Charles Darwin or Adam Smith. They would tell you that often in a system where individuals are trying to maximize their own benefit, they do it with much waste and to the detriment of the larger group. That is what we are doing when we don’t care about how much CO2 we emit. Somewhere along the line someone will have to pay the price. And the brunt of it will be felt by innocent individuals that didn’t contribute to the problem and have no means to escape their fate.

With 7 billion people on the planet there will be an inevitable increase in the demand on the world’s natural resources. Here are six already under severe pressure from current rates of consumption:

1. Water

Freshwater only makes 2.5% of the total volume of the world’s water, which is about 35 million km3. But considering 70% of that freshwater is in the form of ice and permanent snow cover and that we only have access to 200,000km3 of freshwater overall, it isn’t surprising that demand for water could soon exceed supply. The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations is predicting that by 2025, 1.8 billion people will be living in countries or regions with absolute water scarcity.

2. Oil

The fear of reaching peak oil continues to haunt the oil industry. The BP Statistical Review of World Energy in June measured total global oil at 188.8 million tonnes, from proved oil resources at the end of 2010. This is only enough to oil for the next 46.2 years, should global production remain at the current rate.

3. Natural gas

4. Phosphorus

Without this element, plants cannot grow. Essential for fertiliser, phosphate rock is only found in a handful of countries, including the US, China and Morocco. With the need to feed 7 billion people, scientists from the Global Phosphorus Research Initiative predict we could run out of phosphorus in 50 to 100 years unless new reserves of the element are found.

5. Coal

This has the largest reserves left of all the fossil fuels, but as China and other developing countries continue to increase their appetite for coal, demand could finally outstrip supply. As it is, we have enough coal to meet 188 years of global production.

6. Rare earth elements

Scandium and terbium are just two of the 17 rare earth minerals that are used in everything from the powerful magnets in wind turbines to the electronic circuits in smartphones. The elements are not as rare as their name suggests but currently 97% of the world’s supply comes from China and they can restrict supplies at will. Exact reserves are not known.

ChrisB- I wonder if it will be one of these resources that eventually helps keep human population growth in check. For people like myself, living near a Great Lake, water shortage is one of the furthest things from my mind. Yet that could very well be one of the largest limiting factors capping off the world’s population. I hope we all learn to be a little bit more careful with our precious resources in the future. I know I have taken more than my fair share of long showers.

The 7 billionth person on Earth will draw his or her first breath on Oct. 31, at least according to estimates by the United Nations.

It might seem a reasonable question to ask how humanity will deal with this output of feces as the world’s population creeps toward 10 billion by 2100. But that question presumes we have the poop problem under control now. Here’s the bad news: We don’t.

Approximately 2.6 billion people around the world lack any sanitation whatsoever. More than 200 million tons of human waste goes untreated every year. In the developing world, 90 percent of sewage is discharged directly into lakes, rivers and oceans. And even in developed countries, cities depend on old, rickety sewage systems that are easily overwhelmed by a heavy rain.

All this untreated sewage adds up to a major public health crisis that kills an estimated 1.4 million children each year, according to the World Health Organization. That’s one child every 20 seconds, or more than AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis combined. Despite this massive death toll, sanitation hasn’t gotten the same attention as other world development goals. The United Nations, which set a goal to halve the number of people without basic sanitation by 2015, now calls that target “out of reach.”

“Crapping in the bush,” also known as “open defecation,” is a major problem, George said, because the pathogens from the feces invariably end up tracked back into the village, often contaminating the community water supply.

In her travels, George uncovered enormous cultural differences in the way people think about using the bathroom. In China, for example, plenty of public bathrooms lack doors on the stalls — or even stalls. Meanwhile, Americans happily use toilets in stalls with large gaps below, above and on either side of the door, a fact that seems bizarre in George’s native Britain. In the U.K., she said, public toilet stalls are completely closed off.

Investing in sanitation is by any measure a winning bet: According to the U.N., for every dollar invested in sanitation, $8 are returned in reduced public health costs and lost productivity due to disease. According to WaterAid, a $30 donation buys one person access to both clean water and sanitation.

The availability of a toilet can have wide-ranging effects, George said. In developing areas, she said, up to 20 percent of girls drop out of school, because they have no place to relieve themselves. Providing a latrine can mean the difference between illiteracy and education.

NeilS — The world population keeps growing, and the host of issues that go along with sustaining a larger population are doing the same. If carbon emissions are not curbed, we will see droughts and famines far worse than we have already seen. And these problems wont’ be contained to just Africa or South Asia. The southern United States will experience drought and heat far worse than last summer. In any case, along with global action on climate change, there are huge benefits to be had through investments in sanitation infrastructure.

It is surprising that sanitation has not been widely publicized even though it is responsible for so many child deaths. Of course, it makes some sense that this is not a popular issue, likely because people cringe when they think about it. In any case, there should be a massive undertaking in this department, because if the U.N figures are right, it is hard to get a better bang for your buck than by investing in sanitation.